[Pulp-list] Pulp-list Digest, Vol 61, Issue 8

Gregory Komissarov gregory.komissarov at gmail.com
Tue Dec 9 11:33:46 UTC 2014


## on pulp server ##
$ pulp-admin rpm repo content rpm --repo-id=nova_common_rhel6 --match
'name=.+' | grep "^Filename"
Filename:     jdk-1.7.0_72-fcs.x86_64.rpm
Filename:     jdk-nova-1.7.0-5.el6.x86_64.rpm
Filename:     libmaxminddb-1.0.2-4.el6.x86_64.rpm
Filename:     libmaxminddb-debuginfo-1.0.2-4.el6.x86_64.rpm

## on yum client ##

$ cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 6.6 (Final)

$ yum clean; yum makecache; yum --disablerepo="*"
--enablerepo="nova_common" list available
...
Available Packages
jdk.x86_64
                          2000:1.7.0_72-fcs
                                        nova_common
jdk-nova.x86_64
                         1.7.0-5.el6
                                        nova_common
libmaxminddb-debuginfo.x86_64
                         1.0.2-4.el6
                                        nova_common

only 3 pkgs seen,  libmaxminddb-1.0.2-4.el6.x86_64.rpm is missing. But
it's availiable  over http and present in XML metadata.

To see the metadata:
# pwd
/var/lib/pulp/published/yum/http/repos/rhel/6/x86_64

# tar czvf nova_common_buggy.tgz
/var/lib/pulp/published/yum/master/yum_distributor/nova_common_rhel6/1418123878.17

 nova_common_buggy.tgz in attachment




On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 8:00 PM, <pulp-list-request at redhat.com> wrote:

> Send Pulp-list mailing list submissions to
>         pulp-list at redhat.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         pulp-list-request at redhat.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         pulp-list-owner at redhat.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Pulp-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. quick functionality question about repo metadata (Jon Shanks)
>    2. Re: quick functionality question about repo metadata
>       (Barnaby Court)
>    3. Re: quick functionality question about repo metadata (Jon Shanks)
>    4. Re: quick functionality question about repo metadata
>       (Barnaby Court)
>    5. Re: Consumer repo bind validation (Jeff Ortel)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 17:16:53 +0000
> From: Jon Shanks <jon.shanks at gmail.com>
> To: "Pulp-list at redhat.com" <pulp-list at redhat.com>
> Subject: [Pulp-list] quick functionality question about repo metadata
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+HXFk8UUtcXLHTX9QXbheseVn-LTBagy8U90u6wZyeUANGyQA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> I can't tell if there is a bug or if it's a new feature in pulp between 2.4
> and 2.5 but the publish repo seems to create a new timestamped directory
> for the publish however the repodata directory still seems to retain other
> checksums and grows with each run i.e. the primary, filelist, updateinfo
> and other xml metadata seems to retain the previous meta information from
> the previous runs.
>
> Is there some reason for this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jon
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20141205/a2fa7ddb/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:25:43 -0500 (EST)
> From: Barnaby Court <bcourt at redhat.com>
> To: Jon Shanks <jon.shanks at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Pulp-list at redhat.com" <pulp-list at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] quick functionality question about repo
>         metadata
> Message-ID:
>         <1744369251.9537576.1417800343254.JavaMail.zimbra at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi, This is by design.  If files have not been removed from the repo we
> perform an incremental publish which does not remove the old files.  If an
> RPM is removed from the repo we will perform a clean publish.  The
> repomd.xml will only reference the new files so yum should play nice.
>
> -Barnaby
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Shanks" <jon.shanks at gmail.com>
> To: "Pulp-list at redhat.com" <pulp-list at redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 12:16:53 PM
> Subject: [Pulp-list] quick functionality question about repo metadata
>
> Hi,
>
> I can't tell if there is a bug or if it's a new feature in pulp between
> 2.4 and 2.5 but the publish repo seems to create a new timestamped
> directory for the publish however the repodata directory still seems to
> retain other checksums and grows with each run i.e. the primary, filelist,
> updateinfo and other xml metadata seems to retain the previous meta
> information from the previous runs.
>
> Is there some reason for this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 17:30:14 +0000
> From: Jon Shanks <jon.shanks at gmail.com>
> To: Barnaby Court <bcourt at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Pulp-list at redhat.com" <pulp-list at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] quick functionality question about repo
>         metadata
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+HXFk_wbvqYtdui+SyKTpsV3nZzp6e-w8cjDaG25M3JAPPycA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Yeh we are having problems where new RPM's are not always showing and it
> isn't to do with the meta cache local on the box as we do a yum clean all
> each time, sometimes they show and sometimes it's still showing only the
> old version when we push a new file up and publish. It seems intermittent
> and has only started happening since we upgraded 2.5 it has been fine for
> months on 2.4 and i noticed that this looks like a new feature
> implementation.
>
> i can investigate further and raise a bug.
>
> On 5 December 2014 at 17:25, Barnaby Court <bcourt at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi, This is by design.  If files have not been removed from the repo we
> > perform an incremental publish which does not remove the old files.  If
> an
> > RPM is removed from the repo we will perform a clean publish.  The
> > repomd.xml will only reference the new files so yum should play nice.
> >
> > -Barnaby
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jon Shanks" <jon.shanks at gmail.com>
> > To: "Pulp-list at redhat.com" <pulp-list at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 12:16:53 PM
> > Subject: [Pulp-list] quick functionality question about repo metadata
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I can't tell if there is a bug or if it's a new feature in pulp between
> > 2.4 and 2.5 but the publish repo seems to create a new timestamped
> > directory for the publish however the repodata directory still seems to
> > retain other checksums and grows with each run i.e. the primary,
> filelist,
> > updateinfo and other xml metadata seems to retain the previous meta
> > information from the previous runs.
> >
> > Is there some reason for this?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pulp-list mailing list
> > Pulp-list at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20141205/6756c65c/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:55:08 -0500 (EST)
> From: Barnaby Court <bcourt at redhat.com>
> To: Jon Shanks <jon.shanks at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Pulp-list at redhat.com" <pulp-list at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] quick functionality question about repo
>         metadata
> Message-ID:
>         <1868744373.9553390.1417802108073.JavaMail.zimbra at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Jon, you are not the only person that has been seeing this behavior.  I
> have not been able to duplicate locally so far but am continuing to
> investigate.  If you track down the exact nature of the issue by all means
> please let me know and I'll get a fix in ASAP.  If you clean out the
> previously published files, does yum work properly in that case?  They
> should be ignored since they are not referenced in the repomd.xml but I'm
> wondering if yum is doing something strange.
>
> -Barnaby
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Shanks" <jon.shanks at gmail.com>
> To: "Barnaby Court" <bcourt at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Pulp-list at redhat.com" <pulp-list at redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 12:30:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] quick functionality question about repo metadata
>
> Yeh we are having problems where new RPM's are not always showing and it
> isn't to do with the meta cache local on the box as we do a yum clean all
> each time, sometimes they show and sometimes it's still showing only the
> old version when we push a new file up and publish. It seems intermittent
> and has only started happening since we upgraded 2.5 it has been fine for
> months on 2.4 and i noticed that this looks like a new feature
> implementation.
>
> i can investigate further and raise a bug.
>
> On 5 December 2014 at 17:25, Barnaby Court <bcourt at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi, This is by design.  If files have not been removed from the repo we
> > perform an incremental publish which does not remove the old files.  If
> an
> > RPM is removed from the repo we will perform a clean publish.  The
> > repomd.xml will only reference the new files so yum should play nice.
> >
> > -Barnaby
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jon Shanks" <jon.shanks at gmail.com>
> > To: "Pulp-list at redhat.com" <pulp-list at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 12:16:53 PM
> > Subject: [Pulp-list] quick functionality question about repo metadata
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I can't tell if there is a bug or if it's a new feature in pulp between
> > 2.4 and 2.5 but the publish repo seems to create a new timestamped
> > directory for the publish however the repodata directory still seems to
> > retain other checksums and grows with each run i.e. the primary,
> filelist,
> > updateinfo and other xml metadata seems to retain the previous meta
> > information from the previous runs.
> >
> > Is there some reason for this?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pulp-list mailing list
> > Pulp-list at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:36:59 -0600
> From: Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com>
> To: pulp-list at redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] Consumer repo bind validation
> Message-ID: <5482338B.4090309 at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hey Jon,
>
> The REST API [1] for binding a consumer to a repository returns a task
> that can be used to track the implementation of the bind request by the
> agent on the consumer.  When that task has completed, the bind work on
> the consumer has been completed.  The state of that task is a direct
> reflection of the state of that bind request to the agent.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -jeff
>
> [1]
>
> http://pulp-dev-guide.readthedocs.org/en/latest/integration/rest-api/consumer/bind.html
>
> On 12/05/2014 08:16 AM, Jon Shanks wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was wondering if there is some way to determine whether or not the
> > task is completed from a consumer end when it binds to a repo. In terms
> > of automation, when i bind a consumer, in this case via puppet, i have
> > had to put a sleep in as there is no real way for me to determine when
> > the task is completed from the server side, to then know to proceed with
> > other elements of the configuration.
> >
> > Without any real feature in there for awareness of task completion or
> > with it still running asynchronously it's hard to coordinate tasks
> > around the succession of repository creation on a node.
> >
> > If possible, i'd like to raise a feature if this doesn't exist, but not
> > sure where bugs / features get raised?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pulp-list mailing list
> > Pulp-list at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
>
> End of Pulp-list Digest, Vol 61, Issue 8
> ****************************************
>



-- 
With great regards
Gregory Komissarov
Mob +7 905 288 4181
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20141209/e7ad7daa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nova_common_buggy.tgz
Type: application/x-gzip
Size: 39696 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20141209/e7ad7daa/attachment.bin>


More information about the Pulp-list mailing list